Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 20140278067) in view of Leong (US 20190087058).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
Detecting, utilizing global positioning data, a location of a provider computing device (Paragraph 16, a system 100 includes a computing device 102 coupled to a map server 104 and a location server 106 via a communication network 108. The computing device 102 can be, for example, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a navigation device mounted in a vehicle, etc.);
Modifying the dynamic halo (Paragraph 24, the radius of the accuracy circle indicates the accuracy of the user's location on the map within a certain limit); Note: Gordon teaches modifying a circle around the current location of the user.
While Gordon fails to disclose the following, Leong teaches:
Providing, for display via a user interface of the provider computing device, a digital map comprising, a compass at the location, surrounded by a dynamic halo, adjacent to a contextual information shape (Figure 7, There is a compass towards to the bottom right and contextual information underneath it);
Detecting a status change corresponding to the provider computing device (Paragraph 30, the user interface can be configured to receive a user interaction to change the relevant time for display of time based contextual information. As the user changes the relevant time, different time based contextual information is prioritized for display in conjunction with the geographic area);
In response to detecting the status change, selecting, utilizing a contextual information analysis model, a contextual information item from a plurality of contextual information items corresponding to the provider computing device (Paragraph 30, the user interface can be configured to receive a user interaction to change the relevant time for display of time based contextual information. As the user changes the relevant time, different time based contextual information is prioritized for display in conjunction with the geographic area); and
Modifying the contextual information shape within the user interface of the provider computing device to reflect the contextual information item (Paragraph 30, the user interface can be configured to receive a user interaction to change the relevant time for display of time based contextual information. As the user changes the relevant time, different time based contextual information is prioritized for display in conjunction with the geographic area).
Leong and Gordon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified Gordon by using Leong and providing a digital map with a compass adjacent to contextual information, detecting a status change from the user device, and modifying the contextual information displayed. Doing so would have allowed for real-time updates of navigation information.
System claim 10 and CRM claim 16 correspond to method claim 1. Therefore, claims 10 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gordon and Leong teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting the status change comprises detecting a first direction corresponding to the status change and further comprising providing, for display, a beacon on the first side of the compass corresponding to the first direction (Gordon, Paragraph 5, The mapping software module also displays a user's current location and a direction that the user is facing on the digital map. The user's location and facing direction are rendered as separate but related visual indicators to provide a better and more intuitive visualization).
System claim 14 and CRM claim 19 correspond to method claim 5. Therefore, claims 14 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gordon and Leong teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Leong further teaches:
Determining a rank order of contextual information items utilizing the contextual information analysis model (Paragraph 20, contextual information associated with a particular date and time can be selected and/or prioritized for receiving user interaction relative to contextual information associated with a different date and time); and
Selecting the contextual information item from the rank order of contextual information items (Paragraph 20, contextual information associated with a particular date and time can be selected and/or prioritized for receiving user interaction relative to contextual information associated with a different date and time).
Leong and Gordon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
modified Gordon by using Leong and ranking and selecting contextual information to display. Doing so would have allowed for tailoring the user interface to provide more efficient interactions from a user based on time proximity of contextual information (Leong, Paragraph 20).
Claims 2-3, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Leong as applied to claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, 16 and 19 above and further in view of Cummings (US 20250137798).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gordon and Leong teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Cummings teaches:
Wherein modifying the dynamic halo comprises changing the dynamic halo from a first color corresponding to a first status to a second color corresponding to a second status based on the status change (Paragraph 45, the app may color the current location marker 402, current direction indicator 404, route 406, destination 408, and/or other elements of the map display green in order to indicate the pedestrian 104 is proceeding along the correct route). Note: Cummings teaches modifying elements of the map display. This can be combined with the teachings of Gordon to modify the dynamic halo.
Cummings and the combination of Gordon and Leong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gordon and Leong by using Cummings and modifying the color of the dynamic halo based on a status change. Doing so would have allowed for updating the user interface in real time to notify the user when their status has changed.
System claim 11 and CRM claim 17 correspond to method claim 2. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gordon, Leong, and Cummings teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Leong further teaches:
Wherein modifying the contextual information shape comprises changing the contextual information shape from a first set of textual information corresponding to the first status to a second set of textural information corresponding to the second status based on the status change (Paragraph 55, user interface 210b can be associated with a relevant time that is the same day as the date and time associated with the contextual information directed to the dinner reservation at “Restaurant A.” The user interface 210b presents an interface element 235 that is more prominent and capable of receiving user interaction relative to the interface element 230 in user interface 210a. In this example, the user interface 210b has been changed to include a callout interface element 235 that lists more information about the dinner reservation (e.g., “Dinner for 3”)).
Leong and the combination of Gordon and Cummings are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gordon and Cummings by using Leong and modifying the contextual information based on a status change. Doing so would have allowed for updating the user interface in real time to provide relevant information when their status has changed.
System claim 12 and CRM claim 18 correspond to method claim 3. Therefore, claims 12 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Leong as applied to claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, 16 and 19 above and further in view of Albada (US 20220020106).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gordon and Leong teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Albada teaches:
Wherein detecting the status change corresponding to the provider computing device comprises detecting at least one of: a change in external signals available to the provider computing device; a change in transportation ride state corresponding to a transportation matching system; or a change in transportation features corresponding to the location of the provider computing device (Paragraph 32, The inference engine 212 also accesses (e.g., obtains or retrieves) the current state of the trip from the state aggregator 208. Assuming the trip state indicates that the trip is in a pre-pickup state (e.g., before the rider is picked up), the inference engine 212 performs an analysis, in real time, to determine whether the rider is in a correct location for pickup and/or whether an alternative pickup location that is optimized based on the rider location, predicted rider walking time to the pickup location, driver location, and driver routeline should be presented to the rider).
Albada and the combination of Gordon and Leong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gordon and Leong by using Albada and detecting a change in transportation ride state corresponding to a transportation matching system and a change in transportation features corresponding to the location of the provider computing device. Doing so would have allowed for updating the user interface in real time to provide relevant information when the ride status has changed.
System claim 13 corresponds to method claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Leong as applied to claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, 16 and 19 above and further in view of Kaluza (US 20230196781).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gordon and Leong teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Kaluza teaches:
Wherein detecting the status change comprises detecting a side of a street corresponding to at least one of a requestor computing device matched to the provider computing device or a curb restriction corresponding to the side of the street (Paragraph 69, has at least one exact position data set indicative of the optically prominent or distinctive reference point RP in the vicinity of the current actual position of the safety marker 6a, such as a curb in the area of the road junction and/or a center strip of the road); and
Providing, for display, the beacon on the first side of the compass corresponding to the side of the street (Paragraph 69, has at least one exact position data set indicative of the optically prominent or distinctive reference point RP in the vicinity of the current actual position of the safety marker 6a, such as a curb in the area of the road junction and/or a center strip of the road). Note: Gordon teaches a beacon on the first side of the compass that corresponds to a direction. This can be combined with the teachings of Kaluza which indicates the side of the street.
Kaluza and the combination of Gordon and Leong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gordon and Leong by using Kaluza and visually indicating a curb or side of the street. Doing so would have allowed for updating the user interface in real time to provide relevant information to the user.
Claims 7-8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon in view of Leong as applied to claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, 16 and 19 above and further in view of Deng (CN 109489654).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gordon and Leong teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Deng teaches:
Detecting a pitch level corresponding to a camera view for displaying the digital map (Page 10, Paragraph 5, the real-time locating point orientation angle of between with the user terminal, determining the parameters according to the included angle and the standard map proportion, determining the map zoom level, wherein the angle associated with the zoom level of the map in the set display window); and
Providing a compass representation based on the pitch level (Page 10, Paragraph 5, the real-time locating point orientation angle of between with the user terminal, determining the parameters according to the included angle and the standard map proportion, determining the map zoom level, wherein the angle associated with the zoom level of the map in the set display window). Note: Gordon teaches modifying the compass and Deng teaches modifying the angle or perspective of view. These teachings can be combined to adjust the angle of the compass.
Deng and the combination of Gordon and Leong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gordon and Leong by using Deng and modifying the pitch of the compass representation based on a camera angle. Doing so would have allowed for updating the user interface in real time to provide relevant information to the user.
CRM claim 20 corresponds to method claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gordon, Leong, and Deng teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Deng further teaches:
Detecting a modified pitch level corresponding to the camera view for displaying the digital map (Page 10, Paragraph 5, the real-time locating point orientation angle of between with the user terminal, determining the parameters according to the included angle and the standard map proportion, determining the map zoom level, wherein the angle associated with the zoom level of the map in the set display window); and
Providing a modified compass representation based on the modified pitch level (Page 10, Paragraph 5, the real-time locating point orientation angle of between with the user terminal, determining the parameters according to the included angle and the standard map proportion, determining the map zoom level, wherein the angle associated with the zoom level of the map in the set display window). Note: Gordon teaches modifying the compass and Deng teaches modifying the angle or perspective of view. These teachings can be combined to adjust the angle of the compass.
Deng and the combination of Gordon and Leong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Gordon and Leong by using Deng and updating the modified pitch of the compass representation based on an updated camera angle. Doing so would have allowed for updating the user interface in real time to provide relevant information to the user.
System claim 15 corresponds to method claims 7 and 8. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210217306 A1 discusses updating contextual information related to changes in external status around a vehicle (See Paragraph 49), which is relevant to claims 3, 12, and 18. US 20190263487 A1 discusses pitch in terms of undersea navigation, which is relevant to claims 7-8, 15, and 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights